ABOUT ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS

Any absolute statement in a relative universe is automatically false–except one, that it’s relative.

That means when you draw the limits of a definition, for instance (when you use exclusive definitions, that is, and do not notice irrelevant ‘facts’–and can refuse to accept said facts (however, a ‘fact’ is a rather odd notion in these days of photo alteration software, not that there was another form ever used or anything). You also tend to buy into a notion of linear causation, which actually does cause immediate, intermediate and longterm problems with any sort of attempt at a working philosophy. Modernly, said philosophy would consist of a psychological, political, religious or social theory basically. Openly religious people would insist on calling the usage of it faith. The others would contest any such usage hotly, saying that theirs is a science strictly of fact and therefore does not require belief. This happened, again, recently, to me. I forgot the economics majors, but I do lump them in with the political believers. The first thing the sociologists, psychologists and political scientists (what a term) are supposed to do, incidentally, is avoid believing in political systems. It is very historically evident.

I’ll end the day with a word. It’s “expediency”. Basically, it’s getting to the end as quickly as possible, from cutting in line to skipping a line or three in the assigned book to having a few people quietly killed so that one can get things accomplished.

I’ve noticed people who make absolute statements tend to have much less problem with expediency, from notion to usage. I wonder if that’s coincidence.